[ibogaine] RE: Conferences
kdawsonais at yahoo.com
Fri Jul 5 15:37:00 EDT 2002
From a treatment angle the answer would be that none of these people were truly "addicts" they used drugs then stopped, so they do not fall into the addicted category. Where this breaks down and stops working in such a simple manner is when former hardcore drug users such as yourself, Patrick, others on this list who were unquestioningly "addicts" defined as people who obsessively and compulsively used their drugs of choice despite adverse consequences, be they medical, social or legal. People who had good reason to stop but did not. Or could not.
And then they suddenly do. I think ibogaine is a very interesting detox and maybe something more, but by itself it does not seem to hold the answers and requires some kind of follow through on the part of the addict. The question being what is that follow through and my message being that out of the group that talks on this list, very few or none of you should really be clean. Which is what I find fascinating.
>From my side at least none of this is about society and it's view of drug use and whether or not drugs should be legal. In my opinion they certainly should be, the war on drugs hasn't solved anything that I can see. Of course there isn't anyone in Washington who is requesting my opinion on this topic.
Kerry Dawson, AIS, CAP, MAC
preston peet <ptpeet at nyc.rr.com> wrote:
For example, how do abstinence proponents reconcile their beliefs with a study commissioned by the National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse (NIAAA), published in 1996, which found that a large majority of persons deemed "alcohol dependent" were capable of spontaneous recovery without any form of abstinence-based treatment? In fact, more than half of those who participated in the organizations National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiological Survey (NLAES) and met the diagnostic criteria for alcoholism were capable of moderating their alcohol intake without swearing off booze.
Drugs are different? Not so according to long-term studies of US drug users. Peele reveals that, "Long-term cocaine users, for example, do not become addicts. And when they do go through periods of abuse, they typically cut back or quit on their own." To substantiate this statement the addiction expert cites statistics from the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA) which show that some 3 million Americans have used heroin. Based on this figure, one would think that we are in the midst of a crippling pandemic of addiction. However, roughly 5% had used the drug within the past month. The statistics for cocaine are similar. As Peele explains, "These findings indicate that the vast majority of heroin and cocaine users either never become addicted or, if they do, soon manage to moderate their use or abstain."
> I would also much rather listen to you Patrick, then to some acedemic talking crap *grin* Her point was that I don't care how you did it but if someone goes through all that and can remain off their drugs, then I don't think it matters how much ibogaine you do or not, you cannot remain "sober" if all you are is a inflated ego and empty shell. Which very much to my regret DP conferences are full of. If that is all you are, you will be back to whatever you were on very fast. Every addict I have known again no matter how they did it, has some sort of real inner core and strength. They have the ability to get real and cut the shit. <
I read recently that the government of Scotland at least is asking addicts for their input on what can be done positively to cut down the harms associated with drug abuse and prohibition. Perhaps more drug policy conferences will take their lead. I tend to agree with you on your assessment of addicts being fairly good at getting real and cutting the shit, usually, though not always, once they've quit being "junkies" that is.
>Addictionology which you view as a joke was not invented to annoy or amuse you, the field exists like every other field, it's built up through trial and error and seeing what does or does not work.<
Ahh, but here's the rub- Addictionology was "invented" because people keep insisting they want to use all sorts of drugs, despite whatever penalties the prohibitionist fascists mandated. Hence, the drug users must be sick or crazy to risk prison "just" for a "high." But to me this is both most arrogant and simplistic, leaving out so much of what getting high is all about to so many people, and treats all use of illegal drugs as abuse. Seems to me that is the main reason "addictionology" was invented. The idea that one drug is "good" and others "bad" flies in the face of reason, at least, my reason, especially when "addictionology" completely ignores the very real and very destructive repercussions of prohibition. I realize I alone don't a majority make, but I thought I'd pipe up anyway. AND, what does and does not work? Has there been any consensus whatsoever at all in the history of treatment? Ask any drug addiction treater what addiction is, and chances are, I'd be willing to be tons of money, every single one of them will give a different answer.Ask what the most "effective" treatment methods are, even of different treaters in the same clinic, and again you will receive a vast assortment of different answers. No?
Do You Yahoo!?
New! SBC Yahoo! Dial - 1st Month Free & unlimited access
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ibogaine